Politics

10181 readers

171 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kalanggam@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

JuBe@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

JCPhoenix@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies (www.scotusblog.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by t3rmit3@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This sucks. This is leaning further into the Major Questions Doctrine that SCOTUS has been pushing, where agencies and their actually knowledgeable, employed scientists and technical experts, have no real control over regulatory policies, and instead are beholden to Congress and judges to decide e.g. how many ppm of a chemical is safe for people to drink.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Congress is the one who passed the GCA, FOPA, and NFA. If you don't like the definition of a machine gun being a firearm that fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger (and the parts that allow them to), blame them, not the ATF.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Making owning shoes a felony is ridiculous, and I honestly cant believe you're arguing in good faith.

And a shoe string does not create a firearm that fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger.

The ATF went completely off the rails with that one, and it shouldnt have been a challenge of how constitutional it was, it should have been a challenge that it didn't fit the law.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They didn't make owning shoes a felony. Rich of you too accuse ME of arguing in bad faith in the same breath you say that.

If you use a string to make a reciprocating charging handle pull the trigger as it returns to battery after firing, why is that less "legitimate" in converting the gun into automatic firing than using an auto-sear? In both cases, the gun fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger by a person.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay, it was everyone who owned a gun and a shoestring. Sure, gun owners are no longer allowed to lace up their shoes. Heres a link to the letter. Thats a sensible rule. https://old.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/p46y9n/just_a_reminder_that_in_2007_the_atf_classified/

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun, whether or not there are loops tied on the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm as you proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle, the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machinegun.

So no, gun owners with shoes are not felons, unless they combine those 2 things to make a machinegun. Obviously.